Foliar application of elicitors alters isoflavone concentrations and other seed characteristics of field-grown soybean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is a key species used by the nutraceutical industry, as it contains isoflavones that have beneficial effects on human health. A 2-yr field study was conducted in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, to determine the effects of foliar application of elicitor compounds on isoflavone concentrations of seeds, seed yield, and other important seed characteristics. Two soybean cultivars (AC Proteina and AC Orford) were treated with one of four elicitors: lipo-chitooligosaccharides (LCO) Bj V (C18:1 MeFuc) and Bj V (Ac, C16, MeFuc), chitosan, and actinomycetes spores (Streptomyces melanosporofaciens strain EF-76), each applied at two soybean stages of development [vegetative (V4), and early podding (R3)]. Untreated controls were also included. Total and individual isoflavone concentrations were determined by HPLC. Seed yield, 100-seed weight, seeds per pod, pods per plant and oil and crude protein concentrations were concurrently determined. Total and individual isoflavone concentrations were affected by year and cultivar, which also interacted with elicitors. Interactions indicated that plant response to elicitors varied greatly depending on cultivars and years. Compared with an untreated control, some elicitors resulted in total isoflavone concentration increases ranging between 67 and 87%. No single elicitor treatment, however, consistently increased isoflavone concentrations. There were three-way interactions (year, cultivar and elicitors) for seed yield and number of pods per plants indicating, again, substantial variation in response to elicitors. Response was much greater in 2004, where elicitors consistently increased seed yield and number of pods per plant. Elicitors did not affect crude protein and oil concentrations. The use of elicitor compounds seems promising as a means of increasing isoflavone concentrations and seed yield; evaluations in a greater number of environments are now required. Key words: Soybean, isoflavone, daidzein, genistein, glycitein, protein, oil, seed yield, chitosan, actinomycetes, lipo-chitooligosaccharides
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".